• Welcome to this new upgrade of the site. We are now on a totally different software platform. Many things will be different, and bugs are expected. Certain areas (like downloads and reviews) will take longer to import. As always, please use the Meta Forum for site queries or bug reports. Note that we (the mods and admins) are also learning the new software.
  • The RSS feed for the news page has changed. Use this link. The old one displays the forums, not the news.

4E Proposal: Lower the Item level of the Endless Quiver

FourMonos

Villager
This makes a ton of sense. Simply removes a worthless tracking component. It seems most people dont track ammo anyway.
 

KarinsDad

Villager
This makes a ton of sense. Simply removes a worthless tracking component. It seems most people dont track ammo anyway.
If most people don't track ammo anyway (and I've noticed that most people don't track minor gold expenditure either), then why bother with a special house rule?
 

FourMonos

Villager
Then I guess my question is: should people track arrow/ammo use? If no one really cares, then we have no problem to fix.
 

twilsemail

Villager
If most people don't track ammo anyway (and I've noticed that most people don't track minor gold expenditure either), then why bother with a special house rule?
It doesn't happen often, but I'm with KD on this one.

Aside from the above, you need to adventure for 15 or 20 levels to even make up the cost in ammunition for a level 2 item.

Even that is assuming that every shot eats a unit of ammunition, which it doesn't.

Tracking ammo is a dinosaur that just doesn't belong in 4e, imo.
 

Walking Dad

Villager
So, the answer is no, because of the unofficial house rule that no one counts ammunition anyway?

If this is the case, please state this anywhere. Would be really bad for players if a DM decides to use the official rules.

(I'm not rude, but I'm not sure how to better say this in English. Sorry.)
 

twilsemail

Villager
How about this?

Counter-proposal: Remove the line "Ammunition is used up when you fire it from a projectile weapon." from the ammunition description.

It seems generally unfair that, when presented with a long campaign/adventure, a ranged weapon user can simply run out of usefulness. I think this is especially true as they should be able to recover a majority of their arrows/bolts/random rocks on the ground.

Edit: No worries about rudeness WD. The language barrier can be a thick one sometimes.
 
Last edited:

KarinsDad

Villager
So, the answer is no, because of the unofficial house rule that no one counts ammunition anyway?

If this is the case, please state this anywhere. Would be really bad for players if a DM decides to use the official rules.
To me, this topic is a solution looking for a problem.

It hasn't come up in the year and a half that I have been here and I consider it a non-issue with no need for house rules.

If someone wants to track their ammo, fine. If someone doesn't, it's really not going to bother too many people.

I don't think it is necessary to write down in the game wiki a voted in decision for every special case that someone can think up. Just play the game and have fun and only even consider making any changes if something comes up in the game and it is important enough to decide about for the entire LEB community.

This issue is not important in the big scheme of things. If a DM decides to use the official rules, suck it up as a player and do so.


One of the disadvantages of PBP is that most players don't have a printed out piece of paper character sheet in front of them. On paper, it takes a mere two seconds to track a piece of ammo. It takes 1 to 3 minutes to navigate to an online electronic character sheet and make a change to it. It's really not worth the time and effort here to track, to discuss, or to have rules for. IMO.

There are people here who have difficulty keeping their stat blocks up to date with correct information such as powers and healing surges used. To me, that's 100 times more important than ammo tracking from a bookkeeping perspective.

It seems generally unfair that, when presented with a long campaign/adventure, a ranged weapon user can simply run out of usefulness. I think this is especially true as they should be able to recover a majority of their arrows/bolts/random rocks on the ground.
I think most DMs are reasonable on this type of thing. But I don't think that the game has to be totally equitable to all PCs at all times.

In the Rhapsody adventure at the moment, some of the PCs do not have their armor and some do not have their normal weapons/implements because of the scenario. Is it fair that some do and some do not? Yup. It's totally fair. There is nothing wrong with some PCs having a disadvantage compared to other PCs in some circumstances.

Is it fair that the PCs can be on one side of a ravine, the NPC enemies on another, and the bow user has a range of 20/40 with his attacks, but the ranged spell caster, both PCs and NPCs, are limited to range 10 and the melee PCs have no real chance of attacking? That too is fair. The bow user paid for the privilege of shooting at long range.

If the ranged weapon PC is going out into the wilderness, what prevents him from stocking up on arrows ahead of time?

I don't consider this a fairness issue, no more than I consider it "unfair" that PCs limited to cloth armor have sucky AC and even if they take a feat, they still often have lower AC than many other PCs. It's a property of using a bow that it uses ammo. Take that into consideration as a player, or don't and then suffer the consequences.

As a bow user, a PC gets extreme range and good damage. One of the "costs" of doing so is that he has to pay for and carry arrows. C'est la vie.

Why should we give an advantage to players who have PCs that use bows in this circumstance? I don't see where they are being treated unfairly.
 

twilsemail

Villager
Why should we give an advantage to players who have PCs that use bows in this circumstance? I don't see where they are being treated unfairly.
You're not giving an advantage, you're removing a disadvantage.

Say I'm a bow ranger. I run out of ammo because I only bought 60 arrows and have used them in the last 6 encounters. We have 3 encounters until we get back to town...

My options are to... I dunno twin strike punch people with my 12/13 strength and +0 proficiency? Heck, say I brought two swords with me. I'm still at a penalty to hit everything. I also can't use my dailies or my encounters.

You know what my reaction would be to that on a pbp game? Check back in 2-3 months and see how the party did. Maybe make a new PC.

Not having armor? Kinda bad. Not being able to attack? Really bad. And straight up unfair. Is it written in the rules? Sure is. Is WotC's development team completely flawless?
 

renau1g

Villager
One could argue that once you get past first levels RAW says that mundane equipment does not cost money when building a new PC, so they could purchase 500 arrows off camera and because D&D doesn't address in the rules the inability to carry 500 arrows (maybe a wagon of arrows?) and not really worry.

I can say that the times I've seen a set-up where only the longbow wielding can hit the enemy and the melee party members sit around with their ... longswords ... in their hands is 0. It would be pretty poor encounter design on the DM's part to only allow the ranged PC's to participate. Realistically, the only PC's who may run out of arrows would be ranged rangers and maybe some ranged rogues (although they're likely spending around 50% less shots).
 

Son of Meepo

Registered User
Not that my opinion amounts to much, but I'd be all in favor of getting rid of mundane ammo tracking.

[sblock=Threadjack]
I can say that the times I've seen a set-up where only the longbow wielding can hit the enemy and the melee party members sit around with their ... longswords ... in their hands is 0.
I've played a charisma paladin.

I have seen encounters where the only way for the melee characters to get into the fight is by making some sort of skill check (Acrobatics or Athletics).

Charisma paladins get hosed because they're generally walking around with a -4 ACP and lack the training or the ability scores to make those checks.

And what was I going to do about it? Pick up a ranged weapon and make RBAs? Would that be with my 13 Str or my 10 Dex? I mostly stayed back and used my save granting powers and healing. I only made (ineffective) RBAs so that I could mark things that got close enough.

It didn't get any better for me until I hit paragon and was able to turn my ranged dilettante power into an at-will with Versatile Master.

Sometimes some characters will have difficulty with certain encounters.[/sblock]
 

KarinsDad

Villager
You're not giving an advantage, you're removing a disadvantage.
Ammo is ammo. It's a game concept with that built in disadvantage of renewable charges in order to get the significant advantage of long range. It's a trade off (and quite frankly, nobody takes a sling).

You are wanting to remove the disadvantage for nothing in return. Just because spell casters do not have this disadvantage is irrelevant. Spell casters are often limited to range 10 (rarely 20) instead or 20/40. Extra range = ammo. Fair tradeoff.

Maybe we should lower the long range of bow users so that melee users can reach the same distance with a charge. And in return, we'll give the bowmen free arrows.


In the Paper Chase, my PC got knocked unconscious. Nobody in the party (TMK) had the "ammo" of a healing potion, so nobody was able to get him conscious via that method. It was fair that we had no healing potions and the PCs still had options. If a Ranger doesn't take other options and is only going to rely on 40 arrows and a bow, then he gets what he pays for. He knows ahead of time coming in the limitation of a bow. Why is this new or surprising?


One of the early complaints of 4E was that it was too much like MMOs.

One property of MMOs is infinite arrows for free.

One could argue that once you get past first levels RAW says that mundane equipment does not cost money when building a new PC, so they could purchase 500 arrows off camera and because D&D doesn't address in the rules the inability to carry 500 arrows (maybe a wagon of arrows?) and not really worry.
Precisely.

I can say that the times I've seen a set-up where only the longbow wielding can hit the enemy and the melee party members sit around with their ... longswords ... in their hands is 0. It would be pretty poor encounter design on the DM's part to only allow the ranged PC's to participate. Realistically, the only PC's who may run out of arrows would be ranged rangers and maybe some ranged rogues (although they're likely spending around 50% less shots).
True, but I've seen many many instances where the melee PCs have to cross water or jump chasms or climb cliffs (having to sheath a weapon/shield in the process) or move slowly across the battlefield without an attack due to Slowed or Dazed while the ranged PCs with the exact same situation fire away every single round.

One advantage of ranged attacks is that the number of times it cannot be used is very slim, much slimmer than the number of times a melee attack cannot attack.


Each type of PC has pros and cons. Ammo is one of the cons of a bowman. I see no need for us to house rule take that con away without the player going out of his way to do so.
 

twilsemail

Villager
So, KD votes NO.

If anyone else feels like responding to the above, have at it. I don't think it particularly elicits a response.

Running out of ammo and being unable to participate isn't fun. The point of the game is to have fun.
 

KarinsDad

Villager
Running out of ammo and being unable to participate isn't fun. The point of the game is to have fun.
How many times has that occurred here that we need a house rule? How many times has a DM here forced a player to keep track of ammo?

In fact, how does one even definitively conclude that running out of ammo "isn't fun" for all players? Can the game not be played where the PC has an unavailable option and the game still be fun? At our table, if this ever happened, the players would laugh their butts off cause of the fumbling bowman trying to come up with more arrows. It would become part of the story. You are wanting to remove that potential part of the story development. At our table, this would become a "Thanksgiving for years to come story of how the bowman walked into the wilderness with 20 arrows".

And being out of ammo is not necessarily the same as being unable to participate. Being unable to participate due to being Stunned or Unconscious happens a lot more here on PBP than running out of arrows. Should we remove those from the game system?

Lot's of assumptions on your part here.

My real take on this is that a house rule on this is not needed for how PBP handles ranged weapons. If there was a real need for this, then it might require a house rule. So far, nobody has presented a compelling reason for a house rule. It's mostly just speculation, smoke, and mirrors.
 

twilsemail

Villager
1. "At our table..." doesn't apply to pbp. At your table 2-3 encouters takes an afternoon. Here it takes weeks or months.

2. You haven't presented a compelling argument against the houserule other than you don't like houserules.

I'm not married to the proposal. I really couldn't care less. One of my PCs uses a glaive and the other is on the fast track to retired or dead(again) and uses a thrown weapon besides. If I ever decide to DM a game on here I won't be tracking ammo.

I do feel that, if something is going to be changed it shouldn't be the item.
 

Walking Dad

Villager
Crossposting from the L4W discussion:
I'll make a counter-counter proposal: magic ranged weapons have automatically returning ammunition in the same way that magic thrown weapons do. So you have to track ammunition for a level or two, and after that it's a given that you can afford enough arrows to last forever.

BTW, I play a non-bow Bard and a Mage here. But I don't like unwritten house rules in Living PbP games.
 

KarinsDad

Villager
BTW, I play a non-bow Bard and a Mage here. But I don't like unwritten house rules in Living PbP games.
There are no unwritten rules. If you have a ranged PC with an ammo weapon, you need ammo.

There are just no Wiki police checking that the player is being honest.

And quite frankly, I doubt that any of the DMs really care. Just like they probably don't care if your PC is carrying around enough food. It really is a non-issue.
 

Walking Dad

Villager
There are no unwritten rules. If you have a ranged PC with an ammo weapon, you need ammo.

There are just no Wiki police checking that the player is being honest.

And quite frankly, I doubt that any of the DMs really care. Just like they probably don't care if your PC is carrying around enough food. It really is a non-issue.
So the magic food and unlimited ammo wondrous items are just traps and we laugh about players who want to buy them to not 'cheat' like the rest who are to lazy to note their remaining arrows in a quick sheet?
 

KarinsDad

Villager
So the magic food and unlimited ammo wondrous items are just traps and we laugh about players who want to buy them to not 'cheat' like the rest who are to lazy to note their remaining arrows in a quick sheet?
People are people. Some of them are lazy. Some of them do cheat. Some of them do lie. And some of them are just forgetful or not interested in minutia.

Do you think that having a house rule would change any of this at all? Especially a house rule that shouts "you need to buy one of these 'now lower level' items if you are a ranged bow or crossbow user". Having such a house rule implies that the judges will be checking when in fact, they won't (why else would you have such a house rule unless the judges were interested in this level of bookkeeping?).

I personally prefer that LEB is house rule light because 4E, especially with all of the errata, is rule heavy.

If your proposal really reallly really affected a lot of players for something that the players and DMs really cared about and it was an obvious hole in the game system, then I would support it.

It doesn't and it isn't.

The game system has a way to handle this. It's called being a responsible player. Buy and carry a bunch of arrows. If you are going on a major out of town mission, buy a bag of holding. If you are higher level, then get the quiver. That mechanism is not egregious, it's just something that many people ignore, either intentionally or unintentionally because the game system has enough bookkeeping without adding more for the minutia.

In fact, a PC buying a Bag of Holding and a boatload of arrows already does what your proposal suggests, it's just at a slightly greater cost with a lot more utility.

I think you saw a cool idea on another thread and thought it would be good for LEB, but it isn't.

Unless something is broken, we shouldn't be fixing it here with house rules. All rules for the game should come from WotC unless something important that affects multiple players is egregiously broken. IMO. Flavor house rules for the campaign setting to me are much more important than modifying classes, feats, powers, and items that are ok as is (or adding new feats, powers, or items when we already have access to many thousands of them).
 

stonegod

Spawn of Khyber/LEB Judge
twils... please don't "vote" for judges. This is the second time I've mentioned this (though it may not have been you).

As for this: While I understand folk's legalistic concern about arrows and such, I do not wish to legislate everything in the game as well. This, to date, has been a non-problem. If the other judges vote officially, I will as well. But this, the food issue, and a few others are I think should be communicated by the DM but not mandated.
 

Advertisement

Top